6 ms·

What value did John T. Walton provide that was worth US$18.2 billion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton

sdoering 5y ago
As much as I agree with your sentiment, I think you could just as easily quote from the first paragraph of the linked Wikipedia article to find a counter point to your (seemingly) rhetoric question: > Walton cofounded the Children's Scholarship Fund, providing tuition scholarships for disadvantaged youth.
- oblio 5y ago
  That's not worth $18.2tn, knowing charity it was probably worth a few tens of millions, at best, and was used for tax write-offs. Plus knowing rich people, he evaded/avoided taxes (probably hundreds of millions, if not billions) that regular Joes making $36.4k a year would never be able to.
- lovich 5y ago
  He did that with money he already had, unless he somehow managed to turn a profit off a charity which would be a different concern
settrans 5y ago
That's obviously not how property rights work. Sam Walton was entitled to bequeath his wealth to his heirs however he saw fit, subject to any applicable estate and inheritance taxes.
- 8note 5y ago
  On death, what right do you retain to that property? Under a more capitalist system, your children could not inherit, and instead have to start from the bottom like everyone else.
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    That’s not capitalism. That’s some kind of meritocratic (anti?-)utopia. Capitalism is when you can do with your property whatever you want including giving it away to whomever you want.
    - oblio 5y ago
      Capitalism ideally means ideal free markets, free of distortion. Starting with market distorting money from birth by definition... distorts markets.
      - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
        A mere change in market equilibrium doesn’t constitute a market distortion.
        oblio 5y ago
        You can label anything "a mere change in market equilibrium", apparently even someone inheriting more money than the GDP of an average sized country ...
        LudwigNagasena 5y ago
        The magnitude doesn't matter, it is a qualitatively different phenomenon. This provides a definition of a market distortions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_distortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_distortion This may help understand why it is defined this particular way and why it excludes inheritance and other wealth transfers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
        nicoburns 5y ago
        I'd argue that any significant wealth inequality constitutes a market distortion. It undermines the "wisdom of the crowd" that underpins capitalism.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  Yes but this is a discussion about ought, not is.
- eesmith 5y ago
  The claim is that in capitalism "you become rich by providing value to other people." John T. Walton became rich through inheritance. Ergo, there are ways of getting rich other than providing value. Ergo, looking at someone who is rich doesn't tell you that they provided value.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    The best way to get rich, and this is supported by evidence, is to have someone give you money. Usually it is one's parents. Just the facts.
    - irisman 5y ago
      Can you show these evidence
      - spacemanmatt 5y ago
        Inheritance is incredibly over-represented as a source of wealth, among the wealthy. Even those who "earned" it rarely come from a poor background. If you don't see this yourself, reach out to a professor of sociology for a frank chat.
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
Kids have obvious value to their parents. That’s like one of the most basic evolutionary instincts.
- eesmith 5y ago
  Sure. But then you have to argue that John T. Walton provided $18 billion of value to his parents. And if Sam Walton were taxed at 100% for all wealth over $100 million, so John Walton were only worth $20 million, then would John have provided less value to his parents? My parents spend several $100,000 on my upbringing. Does that represent my value to my parents? The children from the world's poorest families also provide value to their parents. From this I conclude that "obvious value" of evolution and capitalism's "monetary value" aren't the same.
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    Value is subjective and dependence on your circumstances.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      The current circumstances are from seibelj's comment "you become rich by providing value to other people", where "value" is specifically something which provides economic wealth. Gaining wealth by being the child of a wealthy person is not something specific to capitalism, certainly happened in feudal monarchies, and almost certainly also happened with the children of high level apparatchiks in the Soviet Union.

sdoering 5y ago

As much as I agree with your sentiment, I think you could just as easily quote from the first paragraph of the linked Wikipedia article to find a counter point to your (seemingly) rhetoric question: > Walton cofounded the Children's Scholarship Fund, providing tuition scholarships for disadvantaged youth.

oblio 5y ago
That's not worth $18.2tn, knowing charity it was probably worth a few tens of millions, at best, and was used for tax write-offs. Plus knowing rich people, he evaded/avoided taxes (probably hundreds of millions, if not billions) that regular Joes making $36.4k a year would never be able to.
lovich 5y ago
He did that with money he already had, unless he somehow managed to turn a profit off a charity which would be a different concern

settrans 5y ago

That's obviously not how property rights work. Sam Walton was entitled to bequeath his wealth to his heirs however he saw fit, subject to any applicable estate and inheritance taxes.

8note 5y ago
On death, what right do you retain to that property? Under a more capitalist system, your children could not inherit, and instead have to start from the bottom like everyone else.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  That’s not capitalism. That’s some kind of meritocratic (anti?-)utopia. Capitalism is when you can do with your property whatever you want including giving it away to whomever you want.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Capitalism ideally means ideal free markets, free of distortion. Starting with market distorting money from birth by definition... distorts markets.
    - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
      A mere change in market equilibrium doesn’t constitute a market distortion.
      - oblio 5y ago
        You can label anything "a mere change in market equilibrium", apparently even someone inheriting more money than the GDP of an average sized country ...
        LudwigNagasena 5y ago
        The magnitude doesn't matter, it is a qualitatively different phenomenon. This provides a definition of a market distortions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_distortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_distortion This may help understand why it is defined this particular way and why it excludes inheritance and other wealth transfers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
      - nicoburns 5y ago
        I'd argue that any significant wealth inequality constitutes a market distortion. It undermines the "wisdom of the crowd" that underpins capitalism.
lordnacho 5y ago
Yes but this is a discussion about ought, not is.
eesmith 5y ago
The claim is that in capitalism "you become rich by providing value to other people." John T. Walton became rich through inheritance. Ergo, there are ways of getting rich other than providing value. Ergo, looking at someone who is rich doesn't tell you that they provided value.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  The best way to get rich, and this is supported by evidence, is to have someone give you money. Usually it is one's parents. Just the facts.
  - irisman 5y ago
    Can you show these evidence
    - spacemanmatt 5y ago
      Inheritance is incredibly over-represented as a source of wealth, among the wealthy. Even those who "earned" it rarely come from a poor background. If you don't see this yourself, reach out to a professor of sociology for a frank chat.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

Kids have obvious value to their parents. That’s like one of the most basic evolutionary instincts.

eesmith 5y ago
Sure. But then you have to argue that John T. Walton provided $18 billion of value to his parents. And if Sam Walton were taxed at 100% for all wealth over $100 million, so John Walton were only worth $20 million, then would John have provided less value to his parents? My parents spend several $100,000 on my upbringing. Does that represent my value to my parents? The children from the world's poorest families also provide value to their parents. From this I conclude that "obvious value" of evolution and capitalism's "monetary value" aren't the same.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  Value is subjective and dependence on your circumstances.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    The current circumstances are from seibelj's comment "you become rich by providing value to other people", where "value" is specifically something which provides economic wealth. Gaining wealth by being the child of a wealthy person is not something specific to capitalism, certainly happened in feudal monarchies, and almost certainly also happened with the children of high level apparatchiks in the Soviet Union.